daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas

Stadiums and Sport Arenas » Completed | Under Construction | Proposed | Demolished



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Which bid should host the FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022?
Australia - 2018 255 12.32%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2018 247 11.94%
England - 2018 538 26.00%
Indonesia - 2018 68 3.29%
Japan - 2018 35 1.69%
Mexico - 2018 105 5.07%
Qatar - 2018 78 3.77%
Russia - 2018 279 13.48%
South Korea - 2018 16 0.77%
Spain / Portugal - 2018 267 12.90%
USA - 2018 116 5.61%
Australia - 2022 378 18.27%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2022 111 5.36%
England - 2022 114 5.51%
Indonesia - 2022 122 5.90%
Japan - 2022 37 1.79%
Mexico - 2022 149 7.20%
Qatar - 2022 153 7.39%
Russia - 2022 148 7.15%
South Korea - 2022 23 1.11%
Spain / Portugal - 2022 184 8.89%
USA - 2022 249 12.03%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 2069. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old November 9th, 2007, 07:09 AM   #2661
LeX GdL
CHIHUAHUA!!
 
LeX GdL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 0

For the 2018 we have good opcions like candidates, i hope a good competition and the winner be the best one. In special I hope that later of Brazil 2018, the wc continue in America. Greetings to all.
__________________
chihuahua´s state"
LeX GdL no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old November 12th, 2007, 08:13 PM   #2662
Olympiaki-Agones
Registered User
 
Olympiaki-Agones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Likes (Received): 0

I think Australia is the best choice for the 2018 world cup. After all, FIFA wanted every single continent to organise the event. Then the cycle would be close. In the other hand, Australia has a very good infraestructure and the have shown to the world how well-organised they did the Olympic Games in 2000. And also they can developpe a soccer culture.
Olympiaki-Agones no está en línea  
Old November 12th, 2007, 08:19 PM   #2663
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olympiaki-Agones View Post
I think Australia is the best choice for the 2018 world cup. After all, FIFA wanted every single continent to organise the event. Then the cycle would be close. In the other hand, Australia has a very good infraestructure and the have shown to the world how well-organised they did the Olympic Games in 2000. And also they can developpe a soccer culture.
There are far better choices. uh England.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old November 12th, 2007, 11:15 PM   #2664
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968


There were better choices than South Africa as well but for the rotation policy.
Wezza no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 01:10 AM   #2665
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wezza View Post

There were better choices than South Africa as well but for the rotation policy.
The market for football in Africa is huge, putting the world cup there - particularly in South Africa, one of the few countries in the continent with strong support for other 'major' team sports (cricket/rugby) - virtually seals the continent as a football area. It was a long term strategy decision by FIFA to 'nail down' the African support for the game, to show them they are truly a 'part of the football family'... Australia, on the other hand, has little to offer FIFA (yeah, we'd organise a terrific tournament, be great hosts, etc., but financially and in the long term, what do we have to offer that can beat England, Spain, the USA, China, Mexico, etc.)
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 02:34 AM   #2666
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wezza View Post

There were better choices than South Africa as well but for the rotation policy.
it was FIFA's decision, we went up against england and germany for 2006 and lost by one vote, if we got that vote, blatter would have chosen for africa, would we still not have been the best choice? FIFA revenues exceed that of Germany 2006, 3 years before the tournament.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 03:09 AM   #2667
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968

Why would he have chosen Africa?
Wezza no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 03:32 AM   #2668
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wezza View Post
Why would he have chosen Africa?
because he said so.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 04:02 AM   #2669
Club_Dru
World citizen
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ...NL
Posts: 151
Likes (Received): 0

I think England is the best choice too host the WC'18.
They have got the latest ultra modern stadiums, specialy made for football.
Emirates, Wembley, Nw Liverpool stadium, Cardiff , etc. (they also can use the new Olympic-stadium).

Spain has a lot of beautifull stadiums, but the most of them are old. I think England has a better infrastructure then Spain.

USA is too big. The stadiums are wide spread all over the country. USA is two times the sizes of Europe. I know they want to increase the popularity of soccer. Maby better to allow more soccerplayers from abroad to increase the quality of the MLS-teams. And hosting a WC is only temporery.

Benelux hasn't got huge en modern stadiums. Only the new Rotterdam stadium and the new National stadium of Belgium.

Australia I don't know much about it. I know they capable of organise great events and it is a nice country to visit.
Club_Dru no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 04:24 AM   #2670
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewsimons View Post
I think England is the best choice too host the WC'18.
They have got the latest ultra modern stadiums, specialy made for football.
Emirates, Wembley, Nw Liverpool stadium, Cardiff , etc. (they also can use the new Olympic-stadium).

Spain has a lot of beautifull stadiums, but the most of them are old. I think England has a better infrastructure then Spain.

USA is too big. The stadiums are wide spread all over the country. USA is two times the sizes of Europe. I know they want to increase the popularity of soccer. Maby better to allow more soccerplayers from abroad to increase the quality of the MLS-teams. And hosting a WC is only temporery.

Benelux hasn't got huge en modern stadiums. Only the new Rotterdam stadium and the new National stadium of Belgium.

Australia I don't know much about it. I know they capable of organise great events and it is a nice country to visit.
Careful there, boyo... You'll ignite some passions in the valleys with comments like that.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 09:51 AM   #2671
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
because he said so.
Lol
You believe what Sepp Blatter says?
Wezza no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 01:22 PM   #2672
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wezza View Post
Lol
You believe what Sepp Blatter says?
In fairness, I think the fact that Blatter steered FIFA towards the rotation in order to get the finals to Africa is as good an indication as you could ever get that he wanted the finals down there... That being the case it's entirely reasonable, for once, to believe what Blatter said before Germany got the vote.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 01:42 PM   #2673
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968

I'm skeptical.
Wezza no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 02:54 PM   #2674
gincan
Gincan
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 887
Likes (Received): 182

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewsimons View Post
Spain has a lot of beautifull stadiums, but the most of them are old. I think England has a better infrastructure then Spain.
By 2018 Spain will be the best connected country in the entire european union (maybe the entire world), both by road and rail, there will be HSL connecting the entire peninsula meaning you can travel from anywhere to anywhere within 3-4 hours by either rail or road.

Most cities in Spain already have superior infrastructure compared to the ones in UK, the only city that can be said to have great infrastructure is London, the rest rely on busses and poor road network exept for Newcastle which have a smal subway.

In Spain you already have large railbased systems i cities like Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia and Bilbao. And new ones are beeing built right now in Seville, Malaga, Alicante, Palma de Mallorca and Zaragoza. The road network in, around and between spanish cities are already hugely superior to that of the ones in England and is beeing extended all the time.

Airports in Spain are also hugely superior to the ones in England and by 2018 even better, Madrid, Barcelona, Alicante, Palma de Mallorca and Malaga will all have huge terminals. Also Spain have far greater selection of hotels, youth hostals, campings etc.

Stadium wise by 2018 Bernabeu, Camp Nou, Sánchez Pizjuán and La Rosaleda will all have been renovated with state of the art facilities together with newly built ones in Valencia, Bilbao, Zaragoza, Palma de Mallorca and probably a few others, you won´t be able to say that the English ones are better.

With all this said I still think they'll choose England over Spain even if the Spanish bid will be way better.

Last edited by gincan; November 13th, 2007 at 03:13 PM.
gincan no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 03:13 PM   #2675
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wezza View Post
I'm skeptical.
doesn't change the fact that south africa will host the 2010 world cup.
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 04:09 PM   #2676
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,772
Likes (Received): 10327

Quote:
Originally Posted by gincan View Post
By 2018 Spain will be the best connected country in the entire european union (maybe the entire world), both by road and rail, there will be HSL connecting the entire peninsula meaning you can travel from anywhere to anywhere within 3-4 hours by either rail or road.

Most cities in Spain already have superior infrastructure compared to the ones in UK, the only city that can be said to have great infrastructure is London, the rest rely on busses and poor road network exept for Newcastle which have a smal subway.

In Spain you already have large railbased systems i cities like Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia and Bilbao. And new ones are beeing built right now in Seville, Malaga, Alicante, Palma de Mallorca and Zaragoza. The road network in, around and between spanish cities are already hugely superior to that of the ones in England and is beeing extended all the time.

Airports in Spain are also hugely superior to the ones in England and by 2018 even better, Madrid, Barcelona, Alicante, Palma de Mallorca and Malaga will all have huge terminals. Also Spain have far greater selection of hotels, youth hostals, campings etc.

Stadium wise by 2018 Bernabeu, Camp Nou, Sánchez Pizjuán and La Rosaleda will all have been renovated with state of the art facilities together with newly built ones in Valencia, Bilbao, Zaragoza, Palma de Mallorca and probably a few others, you won´t be able to say that the English ones are better.

With all this said I still think they'll choose England over Spain even if the Spanish bid will be way better.

It may have some advantages, but saying it'd be "way better" is overstating the case somewhat.

Besides, this is all academic because I haven't heard anything to suggest Spain will bid anyway.
RobH no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 04:17 PM   #2677
gincan
Gincan
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 887
Likes (Received): 182

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
It may have some advantages, but saying it'd be "way better" is overstating the case somewhat.

Besides, this is all academic because I haven't heard anything to suggest Spain will bid anyway.
I said "even if" I didn´t say it will. Probably I should have written "might be way better".
gincan no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 04:20 PM   #2678
Joop20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewsimons View Post
I think England is the best choice too host the WC'18.
They have got the latest ultra modern stadiums, specialy made for football.
Emirates, Wembley, Nw Liverpool stadium, Cardiff , etc. (they also can use the new Olympic-stadium).

Spain has a lot of beautifull stadiums, but the most of them are old. I think England has a better infrastructure then Spain.

USA is too big. The stadiums are wide spread all over the country. USA is two times the sizes of Europe. I know they want to increase the popularity of soccer. Maby better to allow more soccerplayers from abroad to increase the quality of the MLS-teams. And hosting a WC is only temporery.

Benelux hasn't got huge en modern stadiums. Only the new Rotterdam stadium and the new National stadium of Belgium.

Australia I don't know much about it. I know they capable of organise great events and it is a nice country to visit.
What a well-argued post that is...
Joop20 no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 04:26 PM   #2679
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,772
Likes (Received): 10327

Quote:
Originally Posted by gincan View Post
I said "even if" I didn´t say it will.
Oh, sorry, you did. My apologies.
RobH no está en línea  
Old November 13th, 2007, 10:39 PM   #2680
KiwiBrit
There's only one United
 
KiwiBrit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the garden city
Posts: 1,743
Likes (Received): 12

I see we have another arsehole to go with Septic Bladder, Michel Platini.

He gave an interview to the BBC, and he's not 'convinced' England deserve to host the 2018 WC. Two of his reasons are the amount of money and foreign players in the English game.

I must have missed something here. Isn't this the same Platini who spent the best days of his career as one of those 'foreigners' earning stacks of money in the Italian league? If he is so convinced European football should have a more 'home' feel to each countries league teams, why the **** didn't he stay playing in France then?

Here is the link to the BBC page.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/7093180.stm

I get the feeling he is going to have his own hidden agendas during his tenancy...
KiwiBrit no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Tags
australia, united states of america, world cup

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu